birdie's nest

Project log

birdie — Sat, 13 May 2006 00:02:03 +0000

Project Log

2-15-06: Brainstorm ideas:
Frankenstein- book vs. movie?
Frankenstein & Cyberpunk – do they fit together?
Cyberpunk as a genre?
Male / Female roles in Cyberpunk
Anti-Heroes – are there any true heroes left in literature?

4-3-06: Flushed out some ideas. I don’t think there is enough for an 8 pg. paper about Frankenstein and cyber punk. I really like what I am learning about Cyberpunk though and am thinking about exploring the male / female roles and how they are often switched in this genre. I think Cyber punk is too big to tackle alone, so if anything this is probably a good subtopic.

4-5-05: After discussing the projects more, I am thinking about anti-heroes and cyberpunk. I have been looking around online and think that it will be difficult to get a lot of opinions and literature on the male / female roles in cyberpunk. But there is a lot more available on Anti-heroes….

04-08-06: Found Wikipedia – forgot how much info they have available. Spent several hours today searching through their files on anti-heroes, heroes, villains, and examples of each. I think I will definitely use Anti-heroes for my topic. There is a lot of information available on them. And I think I am getting a real feel for what an anti-hero is. What kinds of things could I explore on this topic? I found a cyber-café site that has some people discussing whether or not there are any examples of the classic heroes in modern literature. One thing discussed here was that anyone whom you would not wish for your child to grow up emulating could not really be called a hero. I like this informal definition for a hero. Flush this out…

04-09-06: Also found some interesting sites yesterday about cyberpunk and am starting to get a good feel for this aspect too…

05-03-06: Put together websites and thoughts onto one document for the conference with
Devon today.

05-05-06: Researched several sites on the hero-myth cycle. I remember this from another English course. Definitely want to incorporate this into my project. I think I am going to take it from the perspective of explaining how varied the anti-hero character can be. The different types are really interesting to me, especially thinking about examples in movies and books that fit into different categories.

05-06-06 à 05-11-06: Worked 2 -5 hours writing and revising every evening. AND NOW I’M DONE!!! Have a great summer
Devon! Thanks for an interesting class!

Anti-Heroes

birdie — Fri, 12 May 2006 02:10:50 +0000

Robin Van Cleave

ENG 247: Final Project

Due: 05/12/06

Anti-heroes

“Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods?” Bonnie Tyler said it best in her 1984 single Holding Out for a Hero. Our current literature seems to have lost its heroes. Bonnie Tyler sang of Hercules; my own endless list of favorites would include Bram Stoker’s Van Helsing, Beowolf, Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, and especially Bastian and Atreyu from The Neverending Story. In place of our idealized flawless heroes, we have created the anti-hero.

FROM HEROES TO ANTI-HEROES

The Hero-Myth Cycle is a powerful force in storytelling. Used in literature, oral stories, film, and art, this cycle depicts a pattern that all heroes follow in some aspect or another. The hero experiences some call to go on a quest, receives aid from an outside source, struggles with various obstacles along the way (often appearing to fail at some point), fulfills the quest, and returns home a changed man or woman. This cycle is diagrammed out at http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~skalman/writework/herocycle.html.With postmodernism came a distrust of absolute truths. The absolute power of the hero’s inner strength or kind heart or wise mind is key to a the hero-myth cycle. These attributes are the entire reason for all challenges and successes throughout the story. With the absolute truths of the hero’s golden character gone, there is no cycle. Postmodernism created a new type of adventure story with a new main character: the anti-hero.

With his normal-person character flaws and failures at everyday living, the anti-hero is someone with whom readers of the 21^st century can identify. Where heroes appeal to the inner child’s dreams for the future, the anti-hero appeals to the inner pessimist’s reality. The anti-hero often possesses flaws in his or her character with which readers can identify. We are expected to understand, or at least sympathize with the anti-hero’s negative qualities because of his or her redeeming heroic qualities or intentions. Because of this realistic nature of the typical anti-hero, it has become an increasingly popular character in modern literature, and especially the relatively new genre of cyberpunk.

The realistic appeal of the anti-hero is so fervent that some debate whether modern literature contains any old-fashioned heroes at all. The debates usually include several examples reputed by others as non-heroes. At one site, http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/10721/1105 a general consensus was reached among the bloggers that a character whom you would not wish your children to grow up to emulate, could not be a hero. Through any debate, however, it is clear that anti-heroes are the new heroes.
TYPES & EXAMPLES

Wikipedia, (an online encyclopedia) lists eight types of anti-heroes: the vigilante, the developing hero, the drifter, the failure, the flawed everyman, the villain, the noble criminal, and the monster. Some of these tend to blend together, some blur the line between “good guy” and “bad guy,” and all of them give readers and audiences plenty of reasons to dislike them, but are irresistibly lovable.

The Vigilante. Many old western films used vigilante characters, just like the image that the name conjures up. They are in many ways closest to the typical hero, in that they have the same goals and intentions. However, unlike their counterparts, these characters will fight dirty. Vigilantes see the end objective and will break any rules necessary to get there. In addition to westerns, comic books are full of vigilante anti-heroes. Daredevil, Spider-Man, and The Punisher all break laws regularly in order to achieve a greater good. The Punisher even utilizes torture, but is nonetheless considered a hero, well – at least an anti-hero. My personal favorite vigilante is from the movie The Princess Bride. Westley knocks out the good guys, kills the bad guys, and kidnaps Princess Buttercup in order to save her from death.

The Developing Hero. The bad guy turns good when this anti-hero types is used. Some repellent trait is reformed, and the bad guy ends up saving the day, often by turning on his own fellow bad-men. This can be a bit too sweet for mature tastes. Many teenage flicks offer developing heroes for their main character or his / her love-interest, like 10 Things I Hate About You and become predictable after a few moments into the story. Other stories, like Star Wars for example, present frustratingly loveable characters like Hans Solo, whose transformation is much more fun to observe.

The Drifter. This anti-hero’s outsider status is central to his / her character. Drifters have no one to love, are loved by no one, and often enjoy the resulting solitude. Case’s character in Neuromancer is a classis example of a drifter anti-hero. He dislikes any activities of the “meat,” using the cyberworld to separate himself from other humans. Since cyberpunk often uses such alternate realities in which to set its stories, it is the perfect way to create a bond between the reader and the anti-hero. The reader is unfamiliar with the imaginary worlds of cyberpunk and takes refuge in the drifter’s separation from it. The drifter, therefore, is likely a common anti-hero in cyberpunk literature.

The Failure. Nothing ever goes the way it was meant to go for a failure anti-hero. This character’s greatest asset is his / her persistence. This is the anti-hero type I have the most difficulty with. I cannot think of many examples, and I do not identify with the examples I do come up with. Wikepedia lists Willy Loman from Death of a Salesman and Don Quixote. I think of Charlie Brown. My apologies to
Devon, but I have not come across a useful explanation of this type of anti-hero. I feel that of all the anti-heroes, this is the least fitting type. Then again, I have never understood Charlie Brown.

The Flawed Everyman. Probably the most easily understood type of anti-hero, the flawed everyman is someone everybody recognizes. This character is just an ordinary guy, with plenty of unattractive qualities. He or she may not even have the excuse of good intentions for their everyday misbehaviors, but when forced into situations out of the ordinary, makes the right choices and displays a good heart. I could not ignore Wikepedia’s example of Homer Simpson. He is the quintessential flawed everyman. Homer is a fat, loud, rude, and sexist husband and father who treats his family like dirt but would lay down in traffic for him. Another of my favorite characters in this category is Victor from Chuck Palahniuk’s Choke. Victor is a poor excuse for a human being who cons kind strangers into sending him money. However his friend Denny is worse, and so by comparison Victor is colorful and even likeable, if not someone the reader identifies with.

The Villain. This is the worst of the good guys, and is the anti-hero type furthest from the typical hero. The villain anti-hero does not save the day and does not turn into a better person. The villain can only be called an anti-hero by comparison to his / her fellow characters, whom are so bad, weak, etc. that the main villain is excusable. The scientists who experimentally reform Alex in A Clockwork Orange are evil background figures, the friends he runs with are more vicious, but less intelligent than he, even his own parents reject him. All throughout the story, the reader never finds endearing qualities about Alex, nor are Alex’s hatred and murderous tendencies ever behind him (even once “reformed”). Nonetheless, as a main character, Alex shines splendidly, and readers cannot help but appreciate the pain he endures and the fierce intelligence he applies to each situation that confronts him.

The Noble Criminal. Adding up the acts of the noble criminal will result in a fine display of law-breaking abilities and deceptions. However, the noble criminal differs from the real bad guys because he steals from the rich to give to the poor. Of course, Robin Hood is the easiest example of a noble criminal. Westley from The Princess Bride could also be called a noble criminal, since many of the acts he commits throughout the movie are under the guise of “The Dread Pirate Roberts.”

The Monster. The monster struggles against a world that does not accept him. This basic injustice is the reason for his many misdeeds. Interactions with normal humans must be done in disguise or they will result in disaster. Frankenstein’s monster is a very good example of this type of antihero. He is not created with malice in his heart, but his creator rejects him. The world rejects him. He retaliates and seeks revenge, but would give up all his violent ways if someone would accept him and show him love. Many vampire novels create characters that fit into this category. The creation of the vampire itself is often portrayed as unfair to the monster, who then resists its bloody urges for as long as possible and is wracked with guilt and regret once giving in. The concept behind the monster as an anti-hero is that he or she does not want to be monstrous, but by either its nature or its environment, is forced to commit horrendous acts.

BLURRED LINES

When discussing heroes, anti-heroes, anti-hero types, and villains one thing is clear: nothing is clear. The categories within the anti-hero class overlap. When the main character of the story is a villain, by the above definition, he would be called an anti-hero. However, if the villain is not the main character, he could still be called an anti-hero if he reforms throughout the story, or even if he displays some tiny inner spark of goodness.

The lines between these groups do not always exist; the nicely defined definitions of various anti-hero types are not always so nicely defined. For instance, when deciding what examples to use where, I often found that one character, such as Westley from The Princess Bride, could be viewed as more than one type of anti-hero. As The Dread Pirate Roberts who takes no prisoners, he outwits evil geniuses, terrorizes the kingdom’s brute squad, and humiliates a sniveling conceited Prince Humperdink. He is the noblest of noble criminals. However as Westley, he is madly in love with Buttercup, but roughly kidnaps and interrogates her about her engagement to Prince Humperdink. Westley the vigilante breaks law after law to go after his one true love.

Derek Vinyard’s character in American History X most easily fits into the developing hero role of the anti-hero class. Yet his character as a whole possesses much darker and influential powers than the description of the developing hero projects. Wikepedia describes this character as having unlikeable qualities. Derek Vinyard’s character before his reformation is much worse than unlikeable; he is sickening. He is a villain in every sense of the word. He organizes crimes that destroy families and humiliate people. He murders a black boy for attempting to break into his car. He holds his sister by the hair and shoves food down her throat. A true villain, right? The problem is that he loves his family (his hatred is prompted by the teachings, and later the death of his father, then after abusing his sister, apologizes to her), and truly believes that his wrongs are for a greater good (ridding the world of criminals like the thief who was attempting to steal his car). From these two viewpoints, he could be seen as a vigilante – simply breaking rules to make the world safer. He could even be seen as a noble criminal – stopping drug dealers from dealing on his street. Of course, the overall picture of Derek Vinyard as a developing hero is clear by the end of the film, but the depth of his character is an excellent example of how easily the lines between types of anti-heroes can be blurred.
CYBERPUNK & ANTI-HEROES

The niche in which anti-heroes seem most at home is in the genre of cyberpunk. Though some would disagree with this marriage (http://www.ninjaburger.com/~aeon/thesis/thesis12.shtml ). Cyberpunk’s characters are often somehow oppressed in a futuristic earth. Not only do the appealing flaws of the anti-hero give readers something familiar to grasp hold of in the strange world of cyberpunk, but the anti-hero must fight dirty, his jaded view of the world is simply realistic, and the greater good for which the hero always fought is grainy at best. What this all means is that cyberpunk is like Misfit Island for characters like Rick Deckard from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Neuromancer’s Case. They all may be a little flawed, but cyberpunk turns them into heroes, well – anti-heroes at least.

Works Cited

“Anti-hero.” Wikepedia, 8 Apr. 2006. Wikepedia. 8 Apr. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-heroes.

Baghdad, Bob. “The Rise of the Anti-Hero.” INQ7, 13 Jun 2003. 5 May 2006. http://www.inq7.net/lif/2003/jun/14/lif_4-2.htm.

Dominguez, Diana. “The Hero-Myth Cycle.” Diana Dominguez, 2004. 3 May 2006. http://www.geocities.com/boudicca_1960/hero.html

Oto, Antid. “Where Are the Heroes in Literature?” TPM Café, 29 Aug. 2005. 8 Apr. 2006. http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/10721/1105.

Kirtchev, Christian. “Cyberpunk Understood.” The Cyberpunk Project. 5 Dec. 1999. 8 Apr. 2006. http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/cyberpunk_understood.html.

Kalmon, Steven. “The Myth Cyle and the Hero’s Journey.” New

Vista
High School, 3 May 1998, 23 Apr. 2006. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~skalman/writework/hero.html.

Martin, Paul. “Postmodern Motifs and Ambience in Cyberpunk Films.” The Cyberpunk Project, 10 Nov. 2003. 8 Apr. 2006. http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/cyberpunk_films_postmodern_motifs_and_ambience.html.

“Postmodernism.” Wikepedia, 5 May 2006. Wikepedia. 5 May 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern.

Tyler, Bonnie. Sony Music Entertainment, 1984.

birdie — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:30:23 +0000

My apologies to Devon: In the midst of final projects and papers galore, I am excited for summer, sad for another year gone, & plum out of self-expression. So, forgive me but I am pasting in something I wrote last semester that fits my mood. It’s already been torn apart in workshop (right Chris?) so please, anyone – feel free to comment honestly… J

In the Eye of the Beholder

Lost in thought and maybe in life, I walk along the frozen road. The edges of the asphalt have aged faster than its body, more exposed to all that breaks it down. Along the timeline of my path, colorlessness gathers in every wrinkled, cracked flaw accentuating the weather-beaten edges. I sigh. My hands are cold in my new gloves and the fat of my thighs has gone numb against the friction of my jeans – as usual. I pause, mulling over my options. Forward or backward? Another sigh. Upside down, inside out, does it even matter? Only twenty five years here, and I’m already lost. Overwhelmed by placid indecision, I tilt my head back and hear raucous child laughter when my tongue protrudes to catch snowflakes. Even deeper absorbed in thoughts and memories, I continue down the road, no longer a safe pedestrian. Oblivious to the backdrop of wind, trees and the occasional passing car, my vision is filled with years, moments, passions, doubts. I walk. And think. The cycle never began and will never end. My footing falters briefly with this thought, but the mechanical actions of so-called voluntary muscles steady my balance.

Why?

Strange…. we learn a question at two years old that will not be answered in all our years on earth. My legs pump slowly, alternating – left, right, left, right. Why? I will walk this direction until I turn around. Then I will walk back to where I started. Alright now, truly. Why? Why start out in the first place? Why come outside, full of light and enthusiasm, wander around, grow tired and numb, and go back the way we came? I mean… the way I came. Outside. From the house. My distaste for Freud deepens.

A presence stops my swinging legs. My deadened skin springs forth a startling rush of tingles, down my arms and up my scalp. The freeze transfers from me to the world. I am alive, awake, and the world is motionless as I stare at the deer an arm’s length away. Her body, legs, tail, and ears are still. Her eyes already on mine, are still. Only the milky puffs rhythmically rolling from her nostrils betray the magic calm. Silent, motionless, but exceptionally alive we stare at each other. Big, brown, watery doe eyes envelope me in their purity. A flash of tail and she is gone.

Slowly I turn around. My legs begin to move again. Despite the standstill in time, cold has continued to spread across my body, and my lips are dry and cracked. The road I walk on is now even more precarious with ice and snow on the broken edges of weary asphalt. The house is more than two miles away. As I move back in the direction I came, my thoughts and questions return. And I begin to smile.

Earth Day

birdie — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:04:42 +0000

Get outside!!! Plant a tree, go for a hike, bury your face in a blossoming tree. Earth Day is Saturday, and all you need to do is stop and take it in for a moment.

It is the heathen christmas after all… Celebrate it!!

free will

birdie — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:02:10 +0000

What makes us do the things we do? Hmm… That's a good question. I was conflicted on this topic when I first watched Minority Report. Perfect trust in the accuracy of something wholly inexplicable was beautifully creepy to me, (probably one reason that I love looking at churches, but dislike going to them…). How can one turn down the prospect of keeping our loved ones safe from 'bad people'? However, this opportunity becomes significantly blurred when the factor is introduced that our loved ones and ourselves must be subject to the same magical scrutiny as the 'bad people.'

Well then, we think - how can we trust it? If the system turned against us, we could say, just like Jon Anderton, that we are innocent – that we know we will not be committing a crime. But then… John did. So the idea that I draw from this is that to trust is not to understand. John Anderton trusted that the system would always tell the truth. Because it always told the truth. What was missing was the story – all the why's behind any event or action. These why's are what make up our reality. Our humanity. Take away cause for action, and action means nothing. The safety is cheapened, because it does not separate out the bad and the good. (Personally I don't think there are bad and good people – just good people who are sick, but that's another post…) It simply prevents a particular action, leaving the remainder: good or bad. Does this make sense?

The choice then is to trust OR to understand. This is not a choice I am able to make because I always need to throughly understand something before making decisions. So… I am unable to make a choice to trust something inexplicable. Does this even leave me with free will?

Neuromancer discussion: A Clockwork Tracy

birdie — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:31:37 +0000

I really enjoyed this book. If I wasn't so swamped with other schoolwork, I probably would have read it straight through in one or two sittings. It wasn't the easiest read.The writing style reminded me of a cross between the cadence of a Dick Tracy and the lingo of A Clockwork Orange. What I mean is that much of the tempo had that private eye detective story feel, and a lot of the language was made up. I had many of the same difficulties following the meaning of A Clockwork Orange from sentence to sentence, but the storyline kept me enthralled – just like neuromancer.

I felt like there were too many words and concepts made up by the author for me to keep track of. I could remember a couple at a time, but I couldn't remember them all each time I saw them. So anyway, although I felt a bit lost some of the time – ok, a lot lost a lot of the time, I did enjoy the story. I loved the muscle in a female character. I loved the slightly removed feeling of Case – his detachment from life, especially "meat" life.

I did have trouble conceptually grasping several aspects of the story. I like to think this was due to my inability to grasp the language rather than overall intelligence level. But que sera sera… I felt like an inadequate observer throughout great sections of this book. I didn't understand the descriptions of things, and wasn't sure when gravity was present & when it was not, and where the hell everything was taking place!

But I liked this book….

I had no visual picture of the matrix Case plugged into and didn't understand if his hands were actually manipulating some controls on the "board" or if it was all mental aerobics. I didn't get that whole weird family and all the Janes and the incest? or not incest. I didn't get the malicious relationship between Molly and Riviera. Or Armitage's real history and second meltdown. Or whether the Zionites were insane or brilliant or just potheads…

…did I even like this book?

mtr

birdie — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:36:18 +0000

my dad is a geek. And completely, and totally lovable for it. He bought himself one of those atomic clocks that keep time by the polarity of the earth or something… he calls it his nerd clock, and is extremely proud of it.

Anyway, he is retiring from a federal job in 3 years (this is a man who dislikes change so much, he is already sending me montly MTR {"months to retirement" – see? I told you he was a nerd} countdown emails in order to prepare for this change) that he has worked for over 30 years. God, probably closer to 40. FORTY YEARS at one job!!! I cannot fathom such a thing. And as his retirement 'nears,' I wonder how in the world he will survive such a colossal change.

Can you imagine spending the weekdays of the next forty years of your life in one building? In a cubicle?

I thought about these things yesterday morning as I sat in the warm sunshine on my back porch eating a mango and drinking burnt coffee. As my dad readies himself for the end of a long career, my husband and I are refining our career dreams and deciding what educations and experiences will get us there.

I suppose I don't have much of a point for this post – just some observations that have been really amazing to think about in the last couple of days…

Where are you in the timeline of your life?

DADOES reading response. :(

birdie — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:20:54 +0000

I had mixed feelings about this book. The storyline was interesting and I enjoyed a lot of the creative ideas that were brought up. However, I was bothered by several different things throughout the course of the story.

First, I have to admit that generally I am not the greatest fan of science fictions, so I am sure I had some biases going in. One problem I find with science fictions is that since they often take place in an entirely imagined world, writers tend to go a bit haywire with their ideas. What I mean, is more inventions and concepts are created on the pages of science fictions than can possibly be developed before those pages run out. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep fell victim to the same obstruction, though I have to admit there were far fewer outrageous contraptions and ideas in this book than in other science fictions I have read.

Undeveloped ideas:

There seemed to be some random old-fashioned male/female roles, but there was not enough information about them to really define those roles. I know nothing about Rick Deckard’s wife, other than her generally negative influence on his life. And the mood organ setting for “pleased acknowledgment of husband’s superior wisdom in all matters”??? Give me some more information about why that exists; define their roles more clearly, and I’d love it.

Death of real animals. This seemed to be a huge deal, understandably, but how could it have been the “hospital’s” fault? It’s not as if real animals are able to live forever in this world. So I didn’t understand the concerns about fault and replacement. The animals were depicted similarly to today’s auto industry, and I have never seen a mechanic become concerned that since the car ‘died’ in his shop, he may have to replace it… I’m not saying the concept can’t work, it just didn’t translate smoothly and needs a bit more explanation for my satisfaction…

Isidore the chickenhead. In so many ways, he did not appear to be diminished in mental faculties at all. Why do people hate chickenheads so much?

Mercerism and the empathy box. I feel like this was supposed to be huge or inconsequential, but I have no idea which. I want more discussion on this “religion” and some more allusions to its meaning. I don’t know whether I am supposed to write it off as a spoof of religion, or feel that it was a deep and perfect adaptation of religion to DADOES’s world.

Sex with an Android. This was a huge changing point of character for Rick. Not to sound perverted, but shouldn’t we have been given some information about why? What it was like? Different experiences of sex could have produced the changes that happened to him, so what was the experience supposed to have been?

Then there were so many little situations and events throughout the story that I became confused about while reading. The best example for me happens when Deckard is first trying to arrest Luba and she calls the police. He realizes they are both androids and just hangs out calmly – complying with everything they ask and allowing himself to be arrested! If the police officer were a rogue android dressed up as an officer, (which is what Deckard seemed to suspect) why in the world did he just go with him? When I was reading this, I felt for certain that I was missing something, because all of the actions and thoughts of the characters did not add up. I felt this way through several parts of the book. Just plain lost. Perhaps more discussion on the book would have left me a little less in the dark, but the small amount of discussion that we did have just gave me more questions.

Misconceptions

birdie — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:25:55 +0000

“Sometimes I ask to sneak a closer look,
Skip to the final chapter of the book,
And then maybe steer us clear from some of the pain it took,
To get us where we are this far…”

The Wood Song
~The Indigo Girls

Better late than never~ Frankenstein post

birdie — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:09:06 +0000

Please forgive me for such a long post. I’ve been working on this for awhile, which is also why it is a bit late…

I love this book. The reasons I love it are admittedly strange. I think the main reason is the existence of seemingly contradictory elements within the same story: poor writing and really, really intricate concepts. A kind of sub-reason following the first, is that the characters are simultaneously and extraordinarily simple and complex. I will try to fit this all into one blog.

Poor Writing
I noticed a few things that betray Mary Shelley’s young age. For instance, the characters William and Justine were introduced, at the same time, in a letter from Elizabeth shortly before William is killed and Justine is tried for his murder. That was a little hard to swallow. I mean, there was no mention of them (unless I missed it, which is completely possible) in Frankenstein’s story about living in Geneva. He never mentions his perfectly angelic beloved little brother? And Elizabeth has to tell him in the letter, the story of how Justine came into their lives, although Justine “was a great favourite” of his? It seemed very much an attempt to squeeze in an introduction of soon-to-be-killed-and-mourned characters. I believe if you look for little things like these, you will see them throughout the reading. “It just so happened that..” applies in several places.

Intricate Concepts
1.) Within a discussion about how Victor denied his duties as creator by abandoning his monster, a previous instructor asked me, “What kind of contract does God have with man?” This was a good one and got me thinking. This was basically my answer:
One main difference b/w our creation and the monster’s is that this world is made for us. All we have to do is exist in harmony with the life around us. Granted, we manage to screw that up on a regular basis, but it’s primarily by our own design. God, or whatever forces pushed us into existence, set us up pretty well here on earth. Frankenstein, however created a being who did not fit in anywhere, who had no equal, no community, and no parents to love it and teach it how to live. I think that is far more horrific than any hell we create for ourselves. Does this makes sense to anyone?
2.) Another big one that I think is important is the point of view that Victor and Frankestein were basically the same miserable character. Think about it. Victor and the monster each felt justified in their actions and felt that the other had wronged him. So, each had good intentions; neither of them actually set out to wreak the havoc that ensued.
So what would Shelley’s point have been if that was intentional? It’s a nice simple reminder that the characteristics we don’t like in others are often characteristics we ourselves have. But there’s probably more to it than that. Ideas?

Character Rants n’ Raves
Primarily, my thoughts are on Victor.
Why I hate him:
Victor shows absolutely no responsibility for creating a living thing. He works for 2 years towards this one goal, apparently never realizing exactly how ugly his monster is- b/c I don’t “believe him” when he says that he had gazed on him and knew he was ugly, but life was the quality that made him so horrificly terrifying. I think the guy saw exactly how frightening his creation was, but didn’t care b/c he wanted to be known by the world as the man to give life to a human. Then, when he came to life, Victor realized how dangerous his endeavors had been. A man of genius! He also realizes that he does not want to be associated with such an ugly being. (Later, when he brings Henry back to the apartment, he speaks of his own fears, but that he is more afraid for Henry to see him.) So, what does he do? He runs away – twice! His creation shows no malice towards him- in fact when he finds Victor in his bed, the monster grins and tries to speak. Victor runs because he is a coward. He does not care: 1. that he has created a living thing that has no means of survival: food, shelter, and otherwise or 2. that if his creation is truly as fiendish as he states, it might kill hundreds of innocent people. He simply runs away.
Even the murder of his own baby brother does not move him to confess his creation to the world. Or if not the world, then maybe his own family who could all be in danger since one member has been killed already. Even when his ‘beloved’ Justine is accused… then convicted…. then killed! No, he does not want to appear mad. He stays silent through it all. Once she is found guilty, there is time to confess what he knows before she is killed, and still! his is silent. He comforts Elizabeth when she is mourning Justine, but stays silent. Victor is completely self-centered. He was arrogant enough to think he could create a normal human being, then only thinks of himself once he does. If he had considered his monster’s experiences, or his friends’ & family’s safety at any point (beyond moments of self-sorrow where he mourned that they may not be safe), he may have been moved to act in some way other than to wander around feeling sorry for himself, sorry for his fall from nobility.
So, I think that victor is an arrogant self-centered coward. Other than that, I am sure he’s a fine specimen of society.
Why I love him:
Victor Frankenstein also practices much introspection. His self analysis changes throughout the story, changing the storyline with it – this is what I really like. In the beginning, he becomes feverish with his desire to create life, not stopping to listen to his own conscience until it is too late. For the rest of the story he is plagued with self loathing and doubt. He feels guilty for unleashing the monster upon the world, and it is that guilt that eventually leads him on the journey to create a companion for his monster. As he continues to look inside and berate himself for his actions, he eventually decides not to finish the companion. This causes the monster to systematically destroy everyone in his life until he is enraged enough to hunt the monster down himself. This last change of heart ultimately leads to his death.

The End
So, ok – I promise all my reading responses won’t be this ridiculously long and involved. I just already had to do a lot of this thinking for Frankenstein in another class and couldn’t post a simple “I liked it because” blog. Hope somebody other than poor Devon (who has to read this) gets something interesting out of all my blithering, so that it wasn’t all for naught…